Epsilon Open Archive

Insemination in a piglet herd is the basis for many produced pigs per litter and the overall
production in the herd. Therefore it is of great importance that this work is done carefully and
accurately. Equipment that functions well and is suitable for both animals and worker, improves the
conditions for optimal performance of this work.

It is important for the animals that they are exposed to minimum stress in connection with
insemination, at the same time as the boar stimulation is maximum. It is important for the stockman
that the work load and the risk of injury is as small as possible. Often only one or a few people
carry out the entire insemination work within the larger piglet herds, and the
working environment during insemination is therefore important. At the same time production economy
requires increased efficiency and a reduction in working hours.

This study was a comparative study between the "traditional" way of inseminating sows in Sweden,
according to the approach that the sows are moved to the boar (= area for insemination), compared
to the now increasingly common solution to inseminate sows in the combined eating and insemination
stalls. The hypothesis was that the newer way of doing inseminations would reduce the total work
time with this operation.

In addition to comparing the workload and working hours, the aim has been to present experiences,
and provide documentation and recommendations from the various solutions to improve the skills of
teachers, advisers and consultants in the pig sector. The project's long- term goal has been to
further increase efficiency in the Swedish piglet production.

In total, insemination routines in 12 piglet producing herds have been studied. In 6 of the herds,
the sows were moved to the boar, while inseminations in the other 6 herds were done in the combined
eating and insemination stalls. At the study visits the owner and/stockmen were interviewed with
respect to herd size, animal flow and the procedures
used when inseminating. The insemination unit and the insemination area/insemination stalls,
passageways, gates etc. were measured and photographed. In addition, videotaping of
inseminations in one sow group was carried out in each of all the visited herds. After the visits,
the videos were decoded. For each insemination, the time for the actual insemination (from the time
that the catheter was inserted until it was removed) and the time between inseminations (=”other
time”) was recorded for all workers who were involved in the process. Furthermore, the total number
of inseminated sows and total number of checked and controlled sows was recorded from the videos.
The videos have also been used as a basis for assessing the work load and the risk of injury at
work.

The figures A1-L2 and the images A1-L8 show layouts and photos from the insemination units in all
the herds visited.

In addition to the insemination studies in conventional herds, 3 designs of combined eating and
insemination stalls were established for parallel subjective comparisons at LBT's construction lab
for pig production (Figure 1). Own views and experiences on the advantages and disadvantages of the
compared stalls have been documented. At study visits, students and pig producers also have had the
opportunity to see the three different solutions within the same herd.

From the surveys in the visited herds, we found that the stockpersons generally were satisfied with
their systems for insemination regardless of whether insemination was done on an area in front of
the boar or in a specially designed stall. On average, almost 64% of the

12

studied stockmen working with insemination were women (Table 1). Even though
stockpersons inseminating on an area in front of the boar were satisfied with their conditions,
stockpersons with experience from both systems, however, argued that the work was easier with the
insemination stalls.

When performing insemination on an area in front of the boar, the risks and workload identified
were associated with the other sows jumping on the sow that was being inseminated alternatively on
the stockperson him-/herself. In this system, the stockpersons occasionally also had to use
comparatively more muscle power when they had to drive the sows to the insemination area or from
the insemination down to the deep litter after insemination (Figure
1-10).

When performing insemination in insemination stalls, the design of the stalls to a great extent
affected the way of working and thus the workload and risk of injury. The construction of the back
gates and the locking devices was crucial for how the stockperson entered the stall and for the
movements the inseminator had to do with his/hers arms, hands, and wrists. The workers were also
frequently recorded having to move from stall to stall over the partition between the stalls. Thus,
the design of this partition was significant for the risk of injury in
this operation (Figure 11-19).

From the work operation time observations it was found that the insemination time was not
influenced by the insemination system (Figure 2, Table 2). On average, an insemination required 2.3
minutes per sow in both systems. The variation that existed between herds was due to either the
inseminator always letting the sow “suck in” the semen dose, or, at least in some cases, used a
light pressure on the semen dose when doing the insemination.

On the other hand, a significant difference in “other time” per inseminated sow, was registered
between the systems. On average, the “other time” was 3.8 minutes per inseminated sow when the
insemination was done on an area in front of the boar compared to
1.9 minutes per inseminated sow when using insemination stalls. Thus, the "other time" was
significantly longer when using a special insemination area. However, these results had not
been corrected for the proportion of sows actually being inseminated in the group. Since the "other
time" per inseminated sow increased as the proportion of inseminated sows in a sow group decreased
(Figure 3) a correction of the “other time” to a proportion of 80% inseminated sows in the sow
group in all herds, was made. The difference in the "other time" between systems then became
smaller (3.6 compared with 2.1 minutes per inseminated sow) and the significance level was changed
to a trend (p = 0.09) (Table 3).

In addition to the studies carried out in conventional herds, three different inseminations stalls
were constructed for comparison in the insemination unit on LBT's own construction lab for pig
production (Figure 1). From the subjective assessments conducted by different inseminators, the
type I stall was ranked the highest (Table 4). This was particularly due to a simple and solid
construction of this stall. It should be noted that this stall was not considered to be the best
for all the assessment parameters (Table 4). Compromises must be made and the choice of
insemination stalls for a specific herd must therefore be made in relation to the individual
conditions and requirements of the herd.

In conclusion, the obtained results indicated that insemination in combined feeding-
and insemination stalls was somewhat more labor-efficient as compared to insemination on a special
area in front of the boar. However, when the insemination was done in a stall, it was important for
the stockperson to be aware that the sows could not provide the nose to nose contact with the boar
themselves. Therefore, the requirements for the stockman to maintain
an optimal contact between the sow and the boar would be greater when using insemination

13

stalls. One way to facilitate boar contact was to use a remote controlled boar trailer. In the
herds using such a trailer the stockpersons were very pleased with the function.

In addition to insemination stalls being more time efficient, there is also flexibility in the way
the insemination stalls can be used. Sows that the stockperson thinks are hard to check
for heat, can of course, be taken out via the front gates and checked in front of the boar for a
possible insemination. However, there are a variety of insemination stall models to choose between.
Therefore, a good recommendation to producers who must make new investments in insemination stalls
is to make careful comparisons before selecting. Details such as the
design of the back gate, the construction of the partitions between the stalls, operation of
opening and closing devices, stall width, etc. are important details that the individual producer
must evaluate in relation to his or her own needs.